|
| Group: |
uk.sci.weather |
[ Post new message ] |
|
|
 |
| Author: |
Dawlish |
| Subject: |
Re: 12:18 |
| Body: |
On May 16, 1:11=A0am, Tudor Hughes <tudor...@aol.com> wrote:
> On May 15, 7:18=A0pm, Dawlish <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 15, 6:54=A0pm, Weatherlawyer <Weatherlaw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 15, 4:43 pm, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com>=
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > In article
> > > > <86ea1774-df4a-4877-9a87-697cfa7e3...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > > =A0Weatherlawyer <Weatherlaw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On May 15, 10:41 am, Jim <j...@magrathea.plus.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > So, essentially, you're predicting an earthquake 'at some point'=
in a region
> > > > > > that gets several 'quakes a day?
>
> > > > > Yes.
> > > > > You are quick of the mark, you are, so you are, to be sure.
>
> > > > Hey, I predict a car is going to drive up my street. Soon.
>
> > > > Any moment now.
>
> > > > Oh, it's in the lull between the morning rush and lunch.
>
> > > > Oh! A car! A car! I predicted it!
>
> > > Now predict the big ones.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > The chorus of questions gets louder. You missed the big ones, W and
> > the 6.5 earthquake prediction "at some point", when; "I don't know"
> > can only be described as laughable. I'll give you a week, eh? That's
> > generous, wouldn't you agree?
>
> > Time, surely, to give it up, if what you are doing is this lame and no
> > use to anyone except to give odd pleasure to you?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0Time for you to give it up as well. =A0You will impress no-one =
by
> trying to demolish Weatherlawyer, an utterly pointless quest as a mere
> glance at his postings over time should have told you. =A0You are merely
> activating his mischievousness with the result that he assails us with
> his nonsense far more frequently than he did before when everyone
> wisely ignored him. =A0In an unmoderated group such as this one the only
> way to deal with stuff like this is to rigorously ignore it, and it to
> large extent that has been successful. =A0But not at the moment.
>
> Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thank you for your advice Tudor, but I think I may disappoint you, as
others are doing and have always done, in a few brave cases (scroll
back), by continuing the posting that I'm rather enjoying. You enjoy
yours and I'll enjoy mine. I enjoy your other posts, but I find these,
telling people not to challenge W's theories, rather interfering,
certainly oddly exclusive and very patronising. Please note the tone
of my reply and contrast it with the abusive replies we get from W.
Mind you, W's are far more entertaining! *>))
W; so; "soon". I'll give you a week, as I said and that is generous
for "soon". I think the odds are slightly against you, because you
have located the area, but I note you only use the names of places
that have already cropped up on the earthquake sites - that implies
that you may not actually know this area, or it's geology, very well
at all. Some googling would help.
The odds on a 6-6.5 earthquake occurring somewhere are about 1 every 3
days, but your specific area forecast would make that a longer time
period. However, this is, tectonically, a very active area that you
have chosen; hence I think I'm being generous with a week. Is within a
week OK?
John; to predict one 7.0+ on the San Andreas fault within a week,
once, would only be a good guess. Do it twice in succession and even
seismologists would sit up and take notice. Do it 3 times and there's
the possible Nobel Prize, IF you can keep it up, using a very
"different" theory! Miss a 7.9 mag earthquake anywhere in the world
and no-one gives your theories any credence, as it still leaves
seismology in the place it is today; lots of research (no, W; I mean,
real research), especially in California and very little progress in
prediction.
Paul
|
|
|
|
|